MATI II(The Management of Accelerated Technology Insertion)

Summary of Programs and ActivitiesMichael Radnor, November 1999

AN INDUSTRIAL CONSORTIUM

“Developing and DeployingTechnology Management Processes and Practices

for the 21st Century”

For additional information contact:

1. MATI Board Chairman.

Michael Radnor, PresidentIBD Inc.797 Willow RoadWinnetka, IL 60093phone: 847-446-5279; fax: -9633

or to:

Professor Michael RadnorKellogg Graduate School of ManagementNorthwestern University2001 Sheridan RoadEvanston, IL 60208Phone: 847-491-5617; fax: -4251m-radnor@nwu.edu

2. NCMS/TRC Project Coordinator

Michael GnamNational Center for Manufacturing Sciences3025 BroadwalkAnn Arbor MI 48108-3266Phone: 734-995-4971; fax –1150mikeg@ncms.org

2

1. Program Description

In 1997, five US industrial firms established a consortium to explore tools and techniques for early identification and accelerated application of new and emerging technologies. Named “Management of Accelerated Technology Insertion” (MATI), the long-term intent of the Consortium was to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of United States companies by creating and leveraging a competency based on the management of technology. This objective was a direct response to the challenges posed by the changing nature of global strategic competition that evolved in the last twenty years. Such competition and the concomitant emergence of the lean production model has generated pressures on both corporate and business unit R&D budgets and the resulting technologies available for deployment in both the defense and commercial sectors.

A planning and feasibility study was completed prior to the formation of the Consortium. It found that while the motivation and technology acquisition and adoption processes used in American industry were generally documented, they remained inefficient and uncoordinated between the value chains. Paradigms and knowledge available to improve focus, coordination and alignment were essentially undeveloped or largely lacking. The inefficiencies severely affect innovation (in terms of the time from concept to commercialization), investment prioritization, product life cycle strategies and costs and return on technology investment.

Consolidation with another NCMS consortium seeking to combine scenario planning and technology roadmapping, provided the capacity for contingency-specific technologies to be identified and transferred into product. The result was MATI, with the goal to identify, improve, deploy and disseminate best practices. The vision was strategically driven and customer responsive technology planning, disciplined as well as integrated with the other strategic business, market and product planning processes.

The MATI consortium was formed under the auspices of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), with Professor Radnor of the Kellogg School of Management and president of IBD acting as facilitative industry champion.

The subsequent success of MATI I, determined by participant satisfaction, led to the formation of MATI II. MATI I participants recognized that, while the hard deliverables which resulted from that program were of significant value to their companies, the greatest value was the knowledge creation processes that emerged from the MATI program. These processes were built on extensive participant involvement that generated a robust information exchange and unusually beneficial benchmarking. The close working relationships amongst the participants included a unique pattern and level of industry-academic collaboration. Seeking to continue the MATI I process to explore and expand the range of issues and topics in greater depth, they were joined by a more extensive list of firms to launch MATI II.

Based entirely on publications, conference presentations and word of mouth networking, sixteen firms formed MATI II in a similar, follow-on and continuing program. At this time, the members of the new Consortium are: Baxter, Coca Cola, Ford, IBD Inc., Kellogg, Kraft, Lucent, McDonald’s, Motorola, Redex, Roche, Rockwell, Rohm and Haas, Siemens-Westinghouse, United Technologies and USG. Firms continue to contact the Consortium, exploring membership opportunities and up-to-date membership lists can be obtained by contacting Dr. Radnor at 847-491-5617 (m-radnor@nwu.edu).

2. Overview of MATI I Achievements

MATI I focused its efforts to develop and improve practices and tool-sets on an integrated set of four technology management processes identified as of central importance to the participating firms and to the strategic context within which they functioned. The processes were (in order of the emphasis given), technology and product roadmapping, technology transfer, voice of the customer and portfolio management. The integration among them and their link to strategic drivers was recognized to be as important as the processes themselves investigated. They became recognized as key knowledge and information flow and integration “linchpin” processes within a network of 27, at the corporate, business unit and R&D levels. This process network was contained in the proprietary MATI-defined “MOAD” analysis framework.

3

Studies were carried out by a combination of internal company personnel and research teams organized by IBD and primarily drawn from Northwestern University and its Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Research teams consisted of doctoral and masters students as well as faculty and staff personnel. Findings were discussed and intensively analyzed at MATI meetings and via Internet. The studies were further complemented by a dozen roundtable discussions of the topics, meetings attended by a score of firms in addition to core Consortium participants.

In addition to numerous internal documents (e.g., a monograph containing the company roadmapping templates), MATI I produced over 30 papers (including the first ever doctoral dissertation on roadmapping), most by company and academic co-authors. Companies engaged in a continuous pattern of improving their technology management processes as they learned from the studies and the company presentations. The MATI team soon found itself in demand to keynote and lead programs on roadmapping, by the Office of Naval Research (at a first ever workshop on the subject), by Industry Canada and others, in the US and abroad.

Studies were also carried out on the needs of small and medium sized firms and an initiative launched to apply roadmapping to life-science and biotechnology-based sectors. International linkages were established in the UK (at the University of Cambridge which has a consortium somewhat akin to MATI), in the Far East (with a grant from NSF) - players in this region are now creating a regional consortium designed to collaborate with MATI, in Canada and Israel. MATI also helped form a new technology management society within the INFORMS professional management science society.

3. The MATI II Project PortfolioGiven MATI II’s size (c.f., MATI I), Task-forces were set based on the above topic areas. Firms can be in one or more groups, as well as be members of the Consortium at large.1. RoadmappingMembers:Coca Cola, Ford, Kellogg, Lucent, McDonalds, Motorola, Roche, Rohm and Haas, USG, United Technologies, USG

Agenda:Develop a Roadmapping Manual or Toolkit addressing: ∑ When to Roadmap ∑ Problem checklist ∑ Variety of Roadmapping approaches ∑ Understanding Roadmapping "biases"∑ Implementation roadblocks∑ What is Roadmapping, who should do

it and how should it be applied? ∑ Right information to assemble a

roadmap and validation for completeness; downloading current information

∑ Adjust Roadmapping to deal with uncertainties & scenario planning?

∑ Integration with technology forecasting tools.

∑ Roadmapping Taxonomy ∑ Product/technology and

manufacturing and process technology Roadmapping

Other Roadmapping issues: ∑ Involvement of "voice of the

customer." ∑ Linkages to other business processes. ∑ Deriving value from roadmaps. ∑ Anticipate the value of technologies

in areas of rapid change. ∑ Integration with the supply chain.

2. Technology Sourcing : Members:Baxter, Kraft, Kellogg, Redex, RockwellAgenda:∑ Make vs Buy, i.e., how to decide what to

develop internally/externally. ∑ How to deal with the intellectual property

issues.∑ How to identify technology needs and then

source, domestically and globally. ∑ Benchmark best practices and recognize

technology gaps. ∑ Develop questionnaire to understand and

benchmark expertise in the area outside of the group, using a two-pronged approach: 1) Open show and tell sessions, and 2) use of KGSM student research and internships.

Roadmapping is expected to address questions of causality, training, business management, knowledge management and the composition and activities of the technology team.

4

3. Technology-product-innovation & Strategy; Portfolio Management: Members:Coca Cola, Lucent, Motorola, Roche, Rohm and Haas, SWPC, United TechnologiesAgenda:1. Develop the "Technology Strategy" sub-module in MOAD. How does technology become a meaningful part of the company? How does Roadmapping strengthens the Voice of Technology (VoT). How to align technology strategy with the business plan. Survey what issues companies currently have with tech. strategy in organizations. What works well in addressing these issues and what doesn't; what issues need special attention.2. Determine the "state of the art" practices in portfolio management, particularly: What dimensions are used? What is the general approach? What works, what doesn’t? What is the influence of "industry clock speed" (product life cycles)? Do/should all industries handle portfolio management the same? Determine best practices for portfolio valuation. Cash flow, turns, option theory, strategic fit. Determine the interplay between portfolio management and other practice areas. Other strategy areas under consideration:

∑ Integrating MOAD technology management processes into business processes.

∑ Competitive Intelligence; Process gap identification.

∑ Planning for disruptive technologies; discontinuous ‘game-changing’ innovation.

∑ ROI model for MATI tools.

4. Technology Transfer :Members: Baxter, Ford, Kraft, Motorola, Roche, Rockwell, Siemens-WestinghouseAgenda:The scope covers technology and knowledge acquisition and transfer that is company-company, intra-company, R&D-Manufacturing and across product lines. The central focus is on the transfer processes and on the lessons to be learned from company experiences and studies. In many organizations this occurs when the R&D project team transfers ownership of a technology to the business unit; hence, a key issue involves the relationship between R&D and the business unit. For example, how

early and to what extent does (or should) the business unit get involved in an R&D project, and why? Other practices to consider include: liaison positions, temporarily transferring personnel from R&D, physical co-location, technology transfer metrics, and having a designated "receiver" and a senior "champion" in the business unit. The impact of various other business practices on the technology transfer process within the supply chain is being investigated.

5. Inter-Organizational Technology Standards Leader:RockwellAgenda:This topic is being worked on across the other MATI task-forces, with which it interacts, rather than through a free-standing group. Issues being explored include: 1. Considerations of technology development and product design to smoothly cross national, industry, supply chain and corporate settings; strategic implications of industry roadmaps and national and global standards affecting operations and related supply chains; influencing the development of roadmaps and standards to maintain competitiveness. 2. Meeting, anticipating and influencing global and national standards, managing variations and gaps in standards; standards opportunities. 3. Developing a standards strategy that recognizes environmental concerns and balances competitiveness and competitive edge factors with awareness of the capabilities and potential of the supply chain and industry.4. Assessing the implications of industry roadmaps for corporate roadmapping and the supply chain and interplay with standards.5. Assessing the potential and operational impact of developing standard formats based on defining application attributes.6. Determining critical management processes.

6. Intra-organizational Issues Members:Kellogg, Lucent, McDonald’s, Motorola, RocheAgenda:This group focuses on intra-organizational issues in technology that allow for in-depth study. The topics under consideration are:∑ Facilitating technology knowledge

management; organizational change; organization structure/technology transfer

5

issues; technology management for different organization structures.

∑ Enterprise integration issues for global

Firms: how technology influences structure; the relationship between international standards, markets and technology management.

∑ Increasing top management skill in technology management; achieving buy-in for MATI processes from key managers.

∑ Enhancing the "voices" of customers and technology within the organization (subsuming the original "Voice of the Customer" Task Force).

∑ Defining, integrating and formalizing technology management processes and integrating with strategic, marketing and other processes.

∑ Developing, achieving internal organizational standards including dealing with such changes as acquisitions/mergers, defining the role and position of a "standards unit" and integrating standards thinking with other management processes.

∑ Developing a taxonomy of variables in organization cultures and structures (culture, structure, knowledge) significantly impacting technology management processes in general (e.g., on roadmapping, product development, innovation, etc.).

7. Biotechnology Roadmapping(with possible sub groups in health & food)Members:Kellogg, Kraft, Motorola, McDonald’s, Northwestern Biotech Center, Redex, RocheAgendaDevelopment and application of industry roadmaps in various life-science fields, all so far neglected in this regard. Particular attention is being paid to value adding changes, impediments and evolving field patterns found in different industry sectors.

MATI-II Entitlements and BenefitsConsortium companies:

∑ participate as members of Consortium Board of Directors with equal vote and full participation and decision making powers

regarding scope and focus of MATI-II membership, control of intellectual property;

∑ have full electronic access to all MATI I and II working papers and other with MATI-specific intellectual property, access to MATI proprietary web sites;

∑ fully participate in knowledge sharing and creation between and amongst the Consortium firms including experience sharing, lessons learned, benchmarking, metrics, processes, etc.;

∑ receive individual/corporate access to participating MATI-II members expertise on issues of general consortium concern; feedback and advice with respect to internal technology management projects;

∑ participate in analysis of research findings and have first access to results and both interim and final reports;

∑ participate and/or have right of first refusal in selection and guidance of Management of Technology research projects to be undertaken by selected student and IBD staff teams;

∑ participate in all MATI II Roundtable discussions, workshops, conferences, etc. and receipt of all reports;

∑ have opportunities to co-author and/or review papers/books based on MATI-II programs;

∑ use MATI-II participation to leverage corporate and professional leadership positioning in Technology Management professional societies/journal activities (currently at INFORMS, PDMA, ONR, PICMET, IAMOT, and expanding);

∑ access opportunities to participate in Management of Technology international programs (currently with South East Asia, China, Canada, UK and Israel); enhanced linkage to leading edge technology

management research groups both domestically and globally;

∑ occupy a leadership role in planned research/training programs and institutes;

6

∑ have opportunities for co-participation in government supported MATI II proposals as appropriate (e.g., NSF, NIST);

∑ receive first priority for low cost company specific projects by IBD (e.g., custom in-

company and multi-company training programs, and implementation of MATI-I technology transfer, technology sourcing, scenario planning, etc);

∑ tools and techniques as roadmapping, become closely acquainted with selected Kellogg and other school faculty, masters and doctoral graduate students and other persons involved in Management of Technology projects – with consequential short (project specific/internships) and long term hiring potential.

Appendix II contains a summary of obligations.

For new participants the above mentioned company-specific projects can ensure a rapid ramp up and integration into MATI and help such companies internalize its approach. Where several firms indicate a common project interest, such as a training seminar, this may be carried out as a multi-firm exercise. It is a normal part of such projects that firms interact in a learning and knowledge exchange mode with each other and with other MATI companies that have already developed relevant experience. Companies engaged in such projects give periodic progress and learning reports to relevant MATI meetings. Such projects can also be looked upon as rich case study and research opportunities.

2. Papers and Presentations

RoadmappingRM 1. “Technology Roadmapping Tools: An Empirical Assessment" (Tom Kappel, Northwestern University, John Peterson, Lucent Technologies and Michael Radnor, Kellogg School, Northwestern University), December 3-5, 1997 Palm Springs, CA. Management Roundtable Summit on Product Strategy

RM 2. “Plotting and Navigating a Non-Linear Roadmap: Knowledge-Based Roadmapping for Emerging and Dynamic Environments”, East Asian Conference on Knowledge Creation Management in Asia, Singapore, March 1998; for The Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, (Jeffrey Strauss, Michael Radnor and John Peterson)

RM 3. “Technology Roadmapping: The Whys, the Whens, the Hows and the Risks”, INFORMS Tel Aviv, June 1998, (Michael Radnor)

RM 4. “Roadmapping and Roadmaps”, INFORMS, Tel Aviv, June 1998, (Richard Albright, Bell Labs. and John Peterson)

RM 5. “An Industry Roadmap: Integrated Manufacturing", INFORMS, Tel Aviv, June 1998, (Dudley W. Caswell, Enterprise Innovations)

RM 6. “Managing Technology Using the ‘Roadmapping Tools: Emerging Lessons from the NCMS ‘MATI’ Project.” Proceedings of PICMET ’98 Conference (John Peterson and Michael Radnor)

RM 7. “How to Recognize a Mature Technology Roadmap: A Field Guide for Technology Planning and Management” MATI Draft, July 1998 (John Thompson, Lucent Technologies)

RM 8. “Corporate Technology and Product Roadmapping: Comparing Hopes and Realities”, presented at Office of Naval Research workshop, October, 29–30, 1998 (Michael Radnor)

RM 9. “Roadmaps and Roadmapping”, presented at Office of Naval Research workshop, October29 –30, 1998 (Richard Albright, Lucent)

RM 10. "Technology Roadmapping: A New State of the Art", Michael Radnor, John Thompson and Harry Morehead, INFORMS, Seattle, Oct. 1998

RM 11. Technology Roadmapping: An Evaluation, Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, December, 1998 (Thomas A. Kappel)

RM 12. “The Diffusion of Planning: A First Look at Technology Roadmapping”, Working paper, Lucent Technologies, 1/1999 (T. Kappel)

7

RM 13. “Aligning Strategy and Technology Using Roadmaps”, Proceedings of PICMET ’99, (Michael Radnor and John Peterson).

Strategic IssuesS 1. “Coupling of Technology Management and Strategic Management Processes”, INFORMS Atlanta, November 1996 (Michael Radnor, Daniel Levin, Jeffrey Strauss and Michel Thouati, CellNet Data Systems.)

S 2. “On Managing the Keys to the Technology Kingdom”, 1996 (J. Peterson.)

S 3. “Corporate Growth Engines: Driving to Sustainable Strategic Advantage”, to appear in International Journal of Technology Management, 1998, (Michel Thouati, Michael Radnor and Daniel Levin). The Free Press will publish a book by Thouati and Radnor based on this paper and titled Corporate Growth Engines.

S 4. “Root Causes of Technology Transfer Failure”, INFORMS’96 Atlanta (D. Levin, M. Radnor and M. Thouati.)

S 5. “Coupling of Technology Management and Strategic Management Processes: The State of the Art”, in Proceedings of 1997 PICMET Conference (Michel Thouati, M. Radnor and Jeffrey Strauss).

S 6. “Aligning Technology Impact and Corporate Strategy in the Technology Intensive Enterprise: Conceptual and Theoretical Model/Case Study”, (Hajime Yamada, NTT Corp., John Peterson and Michael Radnor). Proceedings of IAMOT, 7 th International Conference, Orlando, February 1998.

S 7. “Excellence Through Refocus: Managing and Performing to a Balanced Scorecard.” ASQ meeting, April, 1998 (Bitthal Gujrati, SBM and Mark Fabish, Insight Software.)

S 8. “Aligning National Policy and Technology: Of Tofflerian Waves, Engines of Economic Growth and Strategic Technology Diversification”, Presented at ISMOT ’98, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, November 1998 (J. Peterson and M. Radnor.)

S 9. “Reflections in the Looking Glass: On Strategy and Technology.” Draft May 1998 for

Management Sciences: Interfaces, (Michael Radnor and John Peterson.)

S 10. “On Creating New Horizons: Integrating Non-Linear Considerations to Better Manage the Present from the Future.” Presented at the IAMOT ’98 Conference, November, 1998 (John Anderson, NASA, M. Radnor and J. Peterson.)

Technology ProcessesTP 1. “On the Management of Accelerated Technology Insertion”, in Proceedings of 1997 PICMET Conference (M. Radnor, Lloyd Erikson and John Peterson).TP 2. “Using a Process View of Organizations to Understand the Management of Technology”. Proceedings of TIM Division, Academy of Management, Boston, August, 1997 (D. Levin, M. Radnor and M. Thouati).

Knowledge and Technology TransferKTT 1. “Transferring Knowledge within the Company in the R&D Arena”, Proceedings of 1997 PICMET Conf. (D. Levin and M. Radnor).

KTT 2. "Transferring Knowledge in the R&D Arena: Links, Loops and Learning in the Technology Transfer Process", 1998 D. Levin

KTT 3. “Smoothing the Path from Product Conception to Delivery”, Working paper, May 1998, (John Thompson and Gary Lindquist.)

KTT 4. "New Perspectives on the Technology Transfer Process", A. McMillan and L. Greguske, Rockwell, INFORMS, Seattle, October 1998.

KTT 5. Transferring Knowledge Processes Within the Organization in the R&D Arena, Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, December, 1999 (Daniel Z. Levin.)

Voice of the CustomerVOC 1. “Management of Technology in Business: What Role does the Voice of the Customer Play?” ASQ meeting, April, 1998 (M. Radnor and T. Kappel.)

VOC 2. "Voice of the Customer: Improving Reception and Response", Edward Ostrowski, Kodak, INFORMS, Seattle, October 1998.

Defense

8

D 1. “Defense Conversion for the Technology Intensive Enterprise: On the Conversion Illusion”, in Proceedings of Second Klein Symposium on Technology Management, Elsevier Science, 1999 (Michael Radnor and John Peterson.)

D 2. “Addressing the Illusion of Defense Technology Advantage or Once more into the Breech”, 1997 (Michael Radnor, Glen Wagstaff, Lucent Technologies and John Peterson).

D 3. Panel presentation, DoD Logistics Conference, on "Technology Insertion", November 16 -19, 1997 Monterey, CA. M. Radnor and M. Gnam, NCMS.)

3. International Activities

A series of meetings has been held with members of the Technology Management Programme at the University of Cambridge in the UK. These took place in London and Cambridge (by Michael Radnor), in Cambridge (by Robert McCarthy of Roche), at the PICMET Conference in Portland (by John Peterson and Michael Radnor) and culminated in a visit by one of the co-leaders of the Cambridge programme (David Probert) to the November 1999 MATI meeting. Probert description of the Cambridge program and industrial consortium (that is much like MATI’s, with: British Aerospace, BG Technology, Domino Printing Sciences, Federal Mogul Technology, Hoogovens, Marconi, Rolls Royce, The Post Office, Unilever, and Com Dev). It is anticipated that a close pattern of collaboration between our two programs will emerge, starting with participation in the July 2000 Cambridge conference on roadmapping and technology management.

A grant was obtained from the National Science Foundation and development carried out on a collaborative research and applications program on the management of technology between institutions in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan and the PRC and our program in the US. An initial visit to these countries took place in March 1998 with a follow-up in the Spring of 1999. Besides developing important contacts, the visit enabled participation in and delivery of a paper at an Asian Knowledge Process Management Conference in Singapore. John Peterson and Michael Radnor were invited to present a paper at the 11/98 Second International

Conference on Technology Management in Zehjiang University, China. This was given by Peterson who will be returning to China in early 2000 on behalf of Lucent. These activities have led to the launch of a larger scaled Greater China program, now underway and set the stage for a full proposal to NSF later in 2000. Relatedly, Dr. Radnor is now the External Examiner for the National University of Singapore Technology Management Program.

Two sessions were organized for the July 1998 Tel Aviv INFORMS/ORSIS and Tel Aviv University conference with the general theme: Technology Roadmapping - Understanding and Applying an Important Management Tool (RM 3, 4 and 5.) Topics were: Technology Roadmapping: Strategic and Operational Considerations and Experiences; and an Industry Roadmapping Workshop. Meetings were held with the Office of the Chief Scientist of Israel to discuss collaboration and a follow-up held in July 1999.

In February 1999, four members of MATI were invited to Ottawa, by Industry Canada and Innovation Council of the Conference Board of Canada to make two day-long presentations on Corporate and Industry Roadmapping. Meeting participants were a group of 28 company executives and120 government officials concerned with national level technology programs, consultants and academics. A follow-up visit was paid to the Canadian authorities by Michael Radnor in June 1999. It is anticipated that these meetings will herald broad cooperation between MATI and several Canadian organizations.

4. Defense RelatedMATI project people have participated in several defense related programs (D 1 to 3.) Discussions are currently underway with the Defense Department Logistics Command to extend collaboration.

MATI played a major role in the recent International Roadmapping workshop organized by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), Virginia, October 29 – 30. 1998. Papers were contributed by Richard Albright and Michael Radnor.

4. Tech Management for Small Business

9

A small business component of the program has been initiated to extend the research program to this arena and a proposal submitted by NCMS to the National Institute of Standards & Technology. Several small firms were studied as part of MATI I. Plans have been developed to expand this small company component in MATI II.

6. Life Sciences (health, food industry) RoadmappingIn collaboration with the Northwestern University Biotechnology Research Center and several health and food industry companies, first steps have been taken to launch roadmapping initiatives in the life science industries, something that has not as yet occurred. A planning meeting with 25 companies and other organizations working in the field will be held in Sring 2000 followed by a large-scale conference in the Fall.

7. Research Roundtable Reports"Lessons Learned", attending: Baxter, Case, Caterpillar, GM, IBD, Kellogg, Motorola, NCMS and Rockwell; held March 7, 1997."Voice of the Customer", attending: GM, Kodak, IBD, Kellogg, Lucent, Vanderbilt University, May 14, 1997.

"Technology Roadmapping", attending: GM, Johnson Controls, IBD, Kellogg, Kodak, Lucent, Liquid Controls, NCMS, Rockwell, SSG and Westinghouse held November 12, 1997. “Voice of the Customer”, January 1998, Detroit: - Host, General Motors, also attending IBD, Kellogg, Kodak, Rockwell, OMNEX, SGM and Westinghouse.

“Technology Transfer”, February 1998, Orlando: - Host Westinghouse, also attending, General Motors, IBD, Kellogg, Lucent, NCMS and Rockwell.

Other Roundtables/Tutorials:May, 1997, Nashville (NCMS Annual Meeting), on Environmental Monitoring, International Tech Sourcing and TransferMay, 1997 Pittsburgh: Patent Mapping - Host, WestinghouseJune, 1997, Naperville: Roadmapping - Host Lucent/Bell Labs.March 1998, Evanston, Process IntegrationMay, 1998, Orlando: Roadmapping - Host Westinghouse

May, 1998, Orlando NCMS Annual Meeting. “Development and Use of Roadmaps for your Technical Agenda”, (M. Radnor, H. Morehead, Westinghouse, T. Kappel. J. Thompson, Lucent and E. Ostrowski, Kodak.)

Level-set SeriesA 3-meeting series was held from September to November 1999 to enable MATI II firms to come up to the knowledge level attained by the MATI I companies. The agendas of these sessions are in Appendix I.

8. Research and Training InstituteExplorations are underway in the development of a MATI-based research and training institute that could enable the carrying out of more extensive studies and more extensive programs of training than feasible within a consortium context. A committee has been formed to pursue this matter. Meetings have been held with possible sponsors as part of one strategy for implementing this vision. The institute could be located at the Kellogg School or operate in a free standing manner

9. Professional SocietyThe INFORMS sections Management of Productivity and Technology (M. Radnor, chair) and Technology Management (J. Liker, University of Michigan, chair) have been merged into a new technology management society, allied to the MATI program. A joint sessions of the two sections was held at the October, 1998 INFORMS conference in Seattle, WA, including one by the MATI group and other such joint sessions have been planned for future INFORMS meetings. INFORMS was formed several years ago through a merger of a the Operations Research Society of America (ORSA) and the Institute of Management Sciences (TIMS).

10. Staff and Research AssistantsMichael Radnor is professor of management at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management where he specializes in technology management. His doctorate from Northwestern University was in Industrial Engineering and he holds advanced degrees in engineering and business from Imperial College and the London School of Economics in the UK. Before entering academic life he worked for Israel Aircraft Industries, Lucas Industries (in automotive components) in the UK and in the US with Westinghouse and as

10

head of a high tech. switching start-up in Detroit. He has authored 2 books and almost 100 articles.

Jeffrey Strauss, has led a series of technology and international projects. His masters degree in management was obtained from the Kellogg School and his undergraduate degree in East Asian Studies from Oberlin. Strauss has been a member of the MATI team since its pilot study inception.

Daniel Levin, Kellogg completed his doctoral dissertation in November 1999. He has already been a co-author of a number of papers listed above. Before beginning his doctoral studies, he worked as a consultant. An Academy of Management meeting winner of a best paper award and a best dissertation proposal finalist at INFORMS 1997, Dallas His dissertation is focused on Knowledge Processes in the R&D domain. He is now assistant professor at Rutgers.

Jack Bishop, worked in corporate strategic planning at Brunswick, Dow Corning, May Department Stores and KFC before launching the Northwestern Technology Innovation & Commercialization Center. He then revitalized a State technology transfer and commercialization organization.. More recently, he led UN and USAID technology incubator development projects in 20 countries. His doctorate is inbusiness-economics with a BS in chemical engineering.

Steven Kaufman initiated corporate technology sourcing at Baxter Healthcare (one of the first in the nation), following a successful manufacturing management assignment for the company in Australia. With funding from Baxter and other sources he started an automated (robotic) home nursing care firm based on technology he had sourced. The holder of several patents, he now consults with major international firms on technology sourcing. His earlier experience was in the cosmetics industry in manufacturing in Australia.

Justine Dube - Masters of Manufacturing Management student at Kellogg; B.S. University of New Hampshire, Decision Sciences. 1996-98 PRTM Consulting Weston, MA and Stamford CT as a Senior Operations/Industry Analyst

(benchmarking, supply-chain studies, training). 1993-94 SCI Systems NH.

Elliott Fan – has completed five years in the Kellogg Ph. D program in Organization Behavior. His research focuses on interdepartmental roadmapping teams. His previous studies were completed in the field of social psychology.

Richard Hayes – a Ph.D. student in Organization Behavior at Kellogg has an MBA from Emory University and BA Morehouse College. 1996-97 with Price Waterhouse as a Management Consultant; 1995-96 Nation's Bank; 1993-95 and with McDonald's Corp.

Manthos Kallios – Manthos is a Masters of Management student at Kellogg, graduating in June 2000. A BEng and MSc graduate of Imperial College in London, Manthos, originally from Greece, had substantial engineering experience in UK in the diesel engine and consulting fields before coming to the US.

Michael Kirschner – Mike is a Masters of Manufacturing Management student at Kellogg with MS and BS Science & Mechanics degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology. From1996-98 he was with Nortel as a Systems Engineer; 1990-96 at Motorola in Automation, New Products and Manufacturing Operations.

Michael Rosen – Michael will graduate from Kellogg Graduate in 2000 with majors in finance, marketing and entreprenuership. Prior to attending Kellogg, he worked as a construction project manager in New York City. He received is a registered professional engineer in New York.

New Kellogg Assistants (as of 10/99)

Vincent Chun (Ph.D. Aeronautics, MIT, Aerospace firms, NASA), Matt Cienkus (BS/MS Mechanical Eng.; Motorola), Yi Gao (Monsanto, China), Claude Lavigne (Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering University of North Carolina, Ceramics firms), Arthur Lo (Systems Engineering University of Pennsylvania, Booz-Allen, Singapore), Michelle Pan (China), Shun Zhang (Electrical Engineering, Motorola, Orga Germany), Tito Ciuffij (Mechanical Engineering, Kodak, 3M), Jeri Richards (Mechanical Engineering, GM Institute, GM).

11

12

Appendix IMATI II LEVEL-SET MEETING AGENDA

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15-17,1999

8:00 PMOptional Dinner

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 168:30 AM Agenda for Meeting and MATI II Status Report – Radnor, KGSM/IBD

∑ State of the Website∑ Discussion of Task Force Group Topics∑ Meeting agenda

9:15 AM Level-set I: Integrated Tech. Mgmt Processes - Radnor

9:45 AM Level-set II: Roadmapping Overview /Agenda - R. Albright, Lucent (See appended outline)

10:30 AM Break

10:45 AM Context of roadmapping in MATI I companies

Background presentations from Panel: Kappel, Lucent; Morehead, Siemens-Westinghouse; Odlyzko, Motorola; Essenpreis, Roche; Greguske, Rockwell

1. The evolution of roadmapping within the company:

∑ What processes were used before roadmapping?∑ How it started and why?∑ What has developed since?

1. Roadmapping utilization within various functional departments.2. What does each member of the team get out of it? How have their roles changed over

time?3. Characterization of how company culture impacts the roadmapping process.4. Performance of cross roadmap level analyses, e.g., to discern common priorities, gaps

and opportunities over a range of products or technologies.5. What type(s) of roadmapping goes on in the firm? Product, technology, industry, other?

11:35 AM Technical aspects of Roadmapping (Templates) – Morehead, Siemens-Westinghouse

∑ Creation of visuals – The Roadmap

11:55 AM Organizational Aspects of roadmapping – Kappel

12:25 PM Lunch

12:55 PM Panel presentation and discussion – Moderator: Albright Three major points (selected by Albright) of the roadmapping process with MATI I companies providing information on how the process works within their own companies (task importance, verification, case examples, etc.)

1. Teams – setting up, leadership, management of2. Supporting roadmapping - resources, integration, etc.3. Selling the roadmap , e..g.,

∑ Getting the organization, higher-level management to use it∑ Buy-in

2:30 PMBenefits of Roadmapping - Radnor

13

2:40 PMBreak

2:50 PMComments on variations in roadmapping- Strauss, IBD Adding uncertainty, scenarios and variations into the roadmapping process (preliminary discussion).

3:00 PM Decide on topics to be covered at the 2-day Roadmapping meeting in November – General discussion moderated by Albright

3:25 PM Level-set III: Scenario Planning – Ralph Wood, United Technologies and Paul Odlyzko, Motorola

4:10 PM Biotech Task-force presentation – McCarthy, Roche; Loffler, Northwestern University

5:30 PM Break/Dinner

7:00 PM MATI Board Meeting

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 178:30 AM Level-set V: Technology Transfer - Levin, Rutgers; Radnor; Greguske, Rockwell; and

Burrows, USG

9:45 AM Level-set VI: Technology Strategy and Portfolio Management - Peterson, Lucent

10:45 AM Break 11:00 AM Task Force Updates/ Working Lunch

APPENDIX: OUTLINE FOR ROADMAPPING OVERVIEW

ROADMAPPING ELEMENTS PRE-ROADMAPPING PROCESSES (1 – 9) 1. Define the objectives of the roadmapping exercise

∑ Define target(s) 1. Define target drivers - Typically what have the drivers been?

∑ Competition - What is the competition doing? How do you compare?∑ Customers - What do customers want? Will they pay for it? Do they know?∑ Technology - What is technologically feasible?∑ Others

1. Define Limitations of the roadmapping process, e.g.:∑ Time – By when must the roadmap be completed?∑ $ - What are the budgetary constraints on the process?∑ Technology, Buy-in, etc.

1. Specify stakeholders/players & Select roadmapping team∑ Define relationship of roadmapping to other organizational processes∑ Information requirements and usage requirements of the roadmap by the rest of the

organization.1. Define tasks and sequence – translate drivers (i.e., customer needs) into resource

requirements (i.e., technology).2. Compare existing resources to required resources for each task. Determine timing and

intensity of resource requirements. Identify conflicts over resources.∑ Resources include: ∑ Technology∑ $

14

∑ Personnel1. Resource acquisition plan

∑ How do you acquire the resources that you lack? Make or buy?1. Define assumptions, internal and external milestones, critical events, scenarios and roadmap

variations.2. Creation of visuals – The Roadmap

∑ TemplatesP ost- R oadmapping P rocesses (10 – 12) 1. Integration with other roadmaps and processes

∑ What synergies exist with other roadmaps?1. Revisiting the roadmap – Keeping it up-to-date2. Lessons learned

AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 13-15, 1999 MEETING

10/13/99: Individual Pre-Meeting Task-force dinners with students & faculty

8.00PM, Intra-Organizational Issues8.30PM, Inter-Organization (Standards)8.00PM, Bio-Tech

10/14/99

8.30AM Registration & coffee

8.45AM Introductions; MATI Update, review of Survey and Program Introduction

Mike Radnor, MATI/Kellogg

9.15AM Inter-Organizational: Standards and Trade

Alec McMillan, Rockwell

∑ Why a corporate Standards Strategy is becoming increasingly important ∑ Government Regulations, Industry Standards and Roadmaps for a stable Global

Trading system∑ Rockwell’s experience and approach∑ Components of a Standards Strategy∑ Organizational requirements ∑ Standardization across the Supply Chain

10.15AM Break10.30AM General discussion of Standards, Industry roadmapping and Trade11.15AM Working lunch and Board meeting12.15PM Technology Strategy (continued from September Level-set meeting)

John Peterson, Lucent∑ Portfolio Management: Moving beyond the Purely Financial Criteria∑ Assessing technology opportunities and threats∑ Critical portfolio issues∑ Lucent experiences and lessons

1.00PM Task-force sessions 2.00PM Break

2.15PM Task-force reports

2.30PM MATI I Patent Claims Intelligence Project (from Sept. Level-set meeting)

Mining the Techno-infrastructure: Accelerating Creation of

15

Knowledge-based Intellectual Capital OpportunitiesJohn Peterson, Lucent

∑ Sample of patent claims filings and query structure for early innovation identification (demonstration software & report)

∑ Pilot implementations and validations of target processes and best practices; knowledge transfer mechanisms

∑ New competency: coalition solutions and mining CASIS and similar data bases to identify critical innovation, players and capabilities

3.15PM Close

Optional Evening Program (open invitation)

6.00PM Informal meetings with students 6.30PM Presentations to Mike Radnor’s D59 class

6.30PM Alec McMillan on Standards, etc.7.45PM Break8.00PM Ralph Wood on Scenario Planning

AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 17-19, 1999 MATI II MEETING

Wednesday, November 17, 1999

8.00 PMTask-force Dinners 1. Roadmapping (including biotech roadmapping) 2. Strategy/Portfolio Management3. Intra-organizational Issues.

Thursday, November 18, 1999 (at Motorola) 8.30 AM Registration and continental breakfast

8.45 AM MATI Update and Program IntroductionMike Radnor, MATI Chairman

9.15 AM Company Experiences with Roadmapping: Panel discussionTom Kappel, Lucent - ModeratorKeith Bergelt, Motorola Alec McMillan, RockwellHarry Morehead, Siemens-Westinghouse

10.30 AM Break

10.45 AM Tom Freeburg, Motorola Corporate Vice President and Director of Technology Outlook Laboratory, “Technology, It Must be Managed Well”

11.00 AM Corporate Roadmapping Developments:Dave Stirsman, Ford - ModeratorRich Albright: Roadmapping TaxonomyBob McCarthy, Roche & Mike Rosen, KGSM: Bare-bones/fast-start RoadmappingDavid Probert, University of Cambridge - Developments from Cambridge Program

12.30 PM Lunch plus visit to Motorola Museum

2.00 PMIndustry Roadmapping: Needs, Processes and Benefits

16

Ken Friedman, US Department of EnergyMike Scharf, Baxter – Moderator

3.15 PM The University of Cambridge Technology Management Program and discussion of collaboration

David Probert, University of CambridgeNatalie Schoch, Kellogg - Moderator

4.30 PMBreak

4.40 PMTask-force meetings1. Biotech2. Intra-Organizational Issues3. Roadmapping4. Strategy/Portfolio Management5. Technology Sourcing6. Technology Transfer

6.00 PMDinner at Motorola

Friday November 19, 1999

8.30 AM Task-force meetings (continued)

9.30 AM Task-force reports (except biotech)Natalie Johnson, McDonald’s - Moderator

10.15 AM Break

10.30 AM Role of “Futurists”Denise Chiavetta, Coca Cola & Andy Hines, KelloggPaul Odlyzko, Motorola - Moderator

11.30 AM Biotech Roadmapping discussionSusan Gaud, Kraft - ModeratorPinch Luther, Motorola - bioinformaticsJodi Flax, Motorola - biochips Mike Liebman, Roche Bob McCarthy, Roche & Alicia Loffler, Norhwestern Biotech Center - Roadmapping task-force

12.30 PM Lunch

1.15 PMBoard Meeting: Mike Radnor, MATI & Mike Gnam, TRC/NCMS

17

APPENDIX II: Member Fees and Contributed Time and Expenses

For 1999/2000 (12 month period starting with project launch meeting), the fee for MATI II Consortium membership has been established at $25,000 per 12 month period for firms of $500 million in sales and above. Smaller firms and non-corporate organizations will be assessed a Consortium membership fee on a sliding scale and/or on a negotiated basis (by majority agreement of the Board), with a minimum of $12,500 per the 12 month period. MATI I firms will pay a reduced amount in for the first year of $12,500 in recognition of their contribution to the existing MATI I intellectual property. The annual membership fees are due and payable in full upon launch of the Consortium, or, as otherwise agreed to on a case-by-case basis agreed to by the Board in writing.

Participants joining the Consortium during year one but after the launch date will be treated as if they had joined at the beginning – i.e., there will be no pro-rating of fees. For years beyond 1999/2000, the Board will establish continuing fee levels and rules. A policy to cover financial arrangements with foreign entities will be developed by the Board; until such time, there will be no pre-established policy.

The sum of the Consortium’s full member fees will constitute a pool (the Consortium Fund Pool) from which the expenses of the Consortium are funded. Expenses will be incurred by IBD, Inc for performing as Chairman of the Board and for performing the program tasks outlined in the Consortium work scope. Expenses will also be incurred for externally contracted Consortium administration and management support services. This Consortium Fund Pool will need to reach a minimum critical mass of $150,000/ year to launch the Consortium. In the event sufficient funds to launch MATI II are not collected by Sep 1, 1999, any collected funds will be returned in full to the payer(s).

Besides the annual Consortium membership fee, it is the expectation that all participant firms will contribute significant time to the Consortium endeavors and cover all their own out-of-pocket expenses for travel, etc.

Consortium membership will begin with a limit of 30 Participants, subject to Board approval.

The MATI II Consortium includes a restricted membership category termed “Associate Participant”, to make it possible for firms interested in only one of the MATI II interest areas but not in other parts of the Consortium program to participate. For example, a firm wishing to be involved in the biotechnology initiative could join the MATI II group working on that interest area only. As such it could participate in any activity of that specific interest group. The firm would not be a member of the MATI II Board, would not be eligible to participate in other MATI II interest groups or in general MATI II meetings except by invitation (for example, making a presentation), would not have access to the MATI II web site, etc. Within their group interest area, Associate Participants are expected to give a commensurate level of effort as full Participants; pay their own travel and other expenses, etc. The Associate Participant annual fee for large firms ($500M and above in sales) is set at $12,500 with a minimum $6,250 for smaller firms, or as appropriate based on the above indicated sliding schedule or other Board action. Associate Participants can upgrade to full membership during any year by making up the full one-year fee difference and signing the Consortium Agreement as a Participant.

Associate Member fees will not be considered as part of the Consortium Fund Pool above, but as a separate Associate Fund Pool from which the expenses incurred by the Associate’s interest groups will be funded in part according to Board discretion.

Associate Participants will be initially limited to 15, subject to Board approval.

18